Brown, Blades vs Ghim, Doug prediction for May 21, 2026: Our Monte Carlo simulation ran 10,000 game iterations and projects Ghim, Doug 81 - Brown, Blades 84. Brown, Blades is favored with a 56.2% win probability. The spread is -0.02.
Ghim, Doug
+0.26
Strokes Gained / Round
VS
H2H • THE CJ CUP Byron Nelson
Brown, Blades
+0.17
Strokes Gained / Round
Head-to-Head Win Probability
Ghim, DougBrown, Blades
-104
Best Odds
+10.2%
Edge
1.0u HIGH
Sizing
Projected Points Range 10th – 90th percentile
Brown, Blades
778491
Ghim, Doug
748188
Tournament Context
Event
THE CJ CUP Byron Nelson
Course
TPC Craig Ranch
Field
147 players
Wind
15 mph
Temp
82°F
Conditions
harder (+0.8)
Player Profile — Brown, Blades
Strokes Gained
+0.17/round
Tour Avg
Course Fit
good
+0.195 SG adj
Expected Finish
84th / 147
Matchup Analysis
Brown, Blades
+0.17 SG
EF 84th
Skill Gap
-0.02 SG/round
essentially a coin flip
Ghim, Doug
+0.26 SG
EF 81th · Tour Avg
Edge Breakdown
Our Model
56.2%
Books Say
51.0%
Edge
+10.2%
Brown, Blades vs Ghim, Doug: Model gives Brown, Blades 56.2% win probability vs 51.0% implied (+10.2% edge). Expected finish: 84.
AI Intelligence Analysis
LEAN +0YELLOW ZONE0.6% WR (n=380)
Brown's +0.195 course fit and +0.175 SG create +9.9% edge (56.03% vs 50.98%), but -0.018 skill parity and mid-field EF suggest modest conviction; secondary play only.
Key Factors
- Course fit: +0.195 (Brown advantage)
- Skill parity: -0.018 (near-zero)
- SG total: +0.175 (Brown advantage)
- EF: 84.5 both (parity)
- Edge: +9.9% but modest; mid-field matchup
Risk Factors
- EF parity (84.5 both) suggests true coin-flip
- Skill parity (-0.018) no clear winner
- Moderate edge (5.05%)
EF PARITYMODEST EDGESKILL PARITY
Edge Analysis
Moneyline
Brown, Blades 56.2%
+10.2 pts
Spread
-0.0
+10.2 pts
How this prediction was generated: This page shows output from the Olympus Bets PGA Tour Golf Monte Carlo engine. Each game is simulated 10,000 times using real-time team data, injury reports, and current odds. Probabilities are calibrated using Bayesian methods and sized via the Kelly Criterion. Full methodology →